As I See It
I've long wanted to write about public misconceptions of environmental issues and to explain the geopolitical, eco-energy interplay of the various interest groups that I've dealt with in 40-plus years as a professional. A scientific explanation of the issues is too complex to interest most people, which explains the dire situation with the "Cap & Trade" legislation that was recently narrowly passed by the House, even with strong bipartisan opposition.
The stated goals are to reduce U.S. emissions while setting the "world standard" for other countries to follow, and to develop new technologies and products that will ultimately be our financial reward. There is always a promise of a return in the undefined distant future. The target is Global Climate Change, formerly Global Warming, an esoteric, fuzzy and loosely defined goal.
The bill's objective is controlling carbon dioxide — CO2 — emissions using taxation — carbon tax — to drive it. CO2 is naturally occurring in our world from flora and volcanic discharges, and these emissions are hundreds of times larger than man-made source discharges. There's a high probability that natural (background) CO2 levels could still exceed higher "global standards" in areas having high natural emissions.
Historically, CO2 emission standards have been set by regulators based on concentrations of pollutants, local atmospheric conditions and public health standards. Targeted emission levels vary with these. They are met by measuring and controlling point source emissions — like stacks — with best available technology. However, with the development of monitoring devices that detect significantly lower levels of pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency often opts to set standards to the smallest measurable amount, regardless of justification for public health protection and/or the cost (This has happened most with the testing and monitoring of hazardous substances). This is the current administration's CO2 approach.
Having responsibility for all Department of Defense environmental programs, I was DoD's representative to an interdepartmental committee tasked with working on the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, and this new philosophy was kept out of the final legislation because it threatened our competitiveness.
As early as the 1980s, it was obvious that environmental laws had become so complex (more than tax-laws) that we'd reached near paralysis, and it was almost impossible to legally permit and build any form of energy-generating facility, for example nuclear energy. It's the "environmental tail" wagging the "energy dog." Cap & Trade is an assault on fossil fuel sources, done without having a mix of "drop-in" replacements (just vagaries, primarily weather-dependent technologies).
Politicians and stakeholders have found that issues they can label with an "environmental element" give them a strong, virtually unchangeable, selling point because of fears of the unknown environmental threats and abetted by both the enthusiastic mainstream media and interest groups. Opposition is "un-American"!
Cap & Trade is just another tax levy and is regressive, penalizing most those at the bottom of the economic ladder. However, everyone will share as users pass along their costs. President Obama explained the effects of this carbon tax proposal last fall: "Our electricity costs will skyrocket."
Using environmental alarmist tactics is the method the government plans to use to control both the energy and industrial economy sectors beyond the current targets of the automotive, health care, financial and insurance industries, a majority of our non-federal portion of our economy.
The Climate Control concept is not universally accepted science, even in developed countries, and is dependent on new technologies. Last month, developing countries — the largest, China and India — rejected the concept, citing the adverse affect on industrial development. The highest concentrated discharges are in these countries, not here. The most reduction of pollutant per dollar (marginal return) can be achieved, using proven technologies, in these countries. Globally, our best investment is to aid these countries, and it has the added advantage of improving our image.
Propagandists create a myth by endless repetition of the same lie, and we're the victims. The Congress knows the country is broke. There are better, more cost-effective solutions, assuming we can justify the need for "world leadership." We must take control of our lives and environment. Please remember how our congressional members vote on Cap & Trade at the next election. It's time for them to be held accountable.
¢¢¢
William Parker is an Amesbury resident and former Department of Defense Deputy Assistant Secretary (Environmental).
